In what can only be described as an unhelpful result, it looks like Israel’s elections, with 99% of the votes counted, have produced a tiny lead for the moderate Kadima party over the right-wing Likkud. Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni, (pictured) have 28 seats while Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s Likkud has 27, with seriously right-wing candidate and potential King-maker Avigdor Lieberman at 15 seats and Ehud Barak’s Labour party with a disastrous 13. The rest of the seats in Israel’s parliament – the Knesset – will be divided between a seemingly endless array of left wing and right wing parties, with what looks like a substantial seat advantage for the right-wingers.
The first observation to make is that, even by the standards of most complicated proportional representation systems, Israel would probably have been better off just drawing lots. The second is that you might well expect Livni’s chances of helming any coalition to be very strong, given her victory, however narrow. But you’d be wrong. What happens next is that President Shimon Peres will meet with all the party heads and choose someone to come up with a coalition – that someone being chosen not for their party’s numerical lead but for the likelihood of them being able to put together a majority alliance. Given the gains for the right-wing parties, that someone could just as easily be Netanyahu as Livni- which as we shall see is not a pleasant thought.
There are, in fact, a bewildering number of options in store for Israel, as it begins to play the “Coalition Game” (hint: in this game there is no winner). Here are some of the possible outcomes:
- Livni forms a coalition with her party Kadima and the remaining left-wing/centrist parties. This is sadly unlikely, given that the right wing parties overall appear to have gained the most seats.
- Netanyahu forms a centrist coalition with his own Likkud and Kadima amongst others. This is possible, given that he may want to unite everyone rather than form an ultra right-wing coalition. The ‘may’ in that sentence is heavy on the skepticism.
- Livni forms a “unity” coalition of Kadima, Likkud and Labour amongst others, hopefully leaving out the uber-uber-right winger Lieberman. This is perhaps the best of the realistic outcomes as it puts Livni in the driving seat but allows Netanyahu a place at the table.
- Netanyahu forms a right-wing coalition of Likkud, Lieberman (in his King-maker role) and other right-wing parties . This is the nightmare scenario and, given the electoral advantage of the combined right-wing parties, depressingly plausible
Though nothing is certain when you play the Coalition Game, there are nevertheless real dangers to Netanhyanu gaining the upper hand over Livni.
Livni is hardly anything other than conservative in her views on Palestine, though by Israel standards she comes out as a moderate. She opposes the division of Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital. She also appears to believe in “maintaining maximum settlers” and it would therefore appear that in any peace deal she wants major changes to the pre-1967 boundary to incorporate settlement blocs. But at least she believes in a peace deal, that is she agrees with the two state, negotiated approach and would presumably follow the Annapolis process started in 2007 by George Bush. Livni is conservative, but a viable peace process could well go through her.
Netanyahu is just… very right wing. He does not believe any settlements should be evacuated, and would probably try to expand, not restrict, settlements in the West Bank. He opposes unilaterally handing occupied land back, even to the extent of travelling to the Golan Heights – taken from Syria in the 1967 war and the most likely contender in any land concessions – and planting a tree there in a not-so-subtle statement of his right-wing credentials . He is, in short, opposed to any concessions to the Palestinians and certainly opposed to the two-state peace process, promising instead to deliver an “economic peace”, whatever that means.
Some have argued that a peace process could go through Netanyahu, too. He wants to show the world he is not a monster, they say. He will have to work with his coalition partners, some of whom will be centrist or left wing. He will not want to be alienated from the US because of his forming an ultra- right-wing coalition. This may well be true, but it is worth remembering that this is the guy who, back in the mid 90s, not only rejected the Oslo peace accords with the Palestinians but dismissed the then foreign minister, Shimon Peres, as “worse than Chamberlain” for signing the deal.
I suspect, therefore, that the road to peace in the Middle East does not in the slightest bit go through Netanyahu and Obama’s efforts on the matter will be for nought if the hardliner takes over. I would love to be wrong on this, but not as much as I would love for Livni, not Bibi, to take the helm. May the coalition games commence!
February 11th, 2009 at 18:59
I agree with the broad analysis but I’m very unconvinced by the two-state solution. Even if Israel made concessions in land, it wouldn’t help the Palestinians particularly with regards to water resources. I know its controversial but what about the one-state solution?
February 11th, 2009 at 20:09
I don’t think a one-state solution is controversial so much as Never-Gonna-Happen-able!
February 11th, 2009 at 20:12
Do you think there is a broader question here about proportional representation? Perhaps, in Israel, which has been plagued by weak coalition governments at least since Sharon left the scene, and by short-lived governments for most of living memory, FPTP might actually produce a stronger government more likely to effect a peace?
February 11th, 2009 at 20:24
It definitely won’t happen without some paradigm shift. There is a little truth to FPTP helping but in reality, as Ed notes, none of the parties are actually willing to commit to any lasting peace. Potentially more significant could be the FPTP’s role in creating a higher turnover in the Leadership of parties – and probably rein in the extreme parties.
February 12th, 2009 at 00:17
yeah, I sort of instinctively think israel’s version of pr is a little bit excessive, but you could make an argument either way. on the one hand it sort of encourages radicalism, which at the moment means lots of dangerous right wing parties of which lieberman’s is the worst. on the other hand, becasue there’s so many parties, you normally end up with the comprimuse of a fairly centrist coalition. whereas with fttp you’ll either get a really good left wing party dominating… or a really bad right wing one. and let’s face it, if israel introduced fptp at the moment then all the right wing parties would fall under likud, and the right would rule for ages in a dominant position.
still, like I said, israel’s low-hurdle party list pr does seem a little excessive.
February 12th, 2009 at 00:19
of course if you did get a long-lasting, powerful, centrist/left party in israel with fttp, then you’d probably get a sucessful peace process. after all, the longetivity of trimble and adams was key to the good friday agreement
February 12th, 2009 at 11:41
proportional rep. is a joke, it ruins all countries that have it. israel’s going to be screwed, just like so many other countries before it. first past the post is rubbish… but it’s better than pr!!!!
February 12th, 2009 at 12:24
Not quite true – Germany has PR and it works relatively well, in fact its helped them produce progressive legislation e.g. with the Green party on recycling etc, its also resulted in the dominant parties having a commitment to a social democratic ‘pact’ hence Merkel is not particularly bad for the left.
February 12th, 2009 at 13:58
Nice one Eddy, a very helpful explanation for an interested person like myself who doesn’t have the time/can’t be arsed to sift through pages of confusing and boring newspaper bollocks. Cheers
February 12th, 2009 at 14:52
cheers olly, glad to be of service!
February 20th, 2009 at 17:33
[...] The big news today is that Israel’s President Shimon Peres has selected Binyamin Netanyahu – leader of the right-wing Likud Party – to form the next government. This announcement comes two weeks after the results of the Israel elections, where the moderate Kadima party, headed by Tzipi Livni, beat Likud by one seat. Despite Livni’s victory, however, it was obvious from the start that Netanyahu (pictured, on the left) would likely be the one chosen to form a government, as he is able to scrape together a bigger coalition of right-wing parties than Livni can of left-wing ones. This outcome became near inevitable yesterday when extreme right-wing leader Avigdor Lieberman -whose party “Israel is our home” came a decent third place in the elections – fulfilled his kingmaker role by vowing to support Netanyahu. Following Peres’s decision today, we now know for certain that Netanyahu will be the next Prime Minister of Israel. (For more on the election results and the coalition alternatives, see my post Israel Election Results: Your guess is as good as mine) [...]
June 12th, 2010 at 12:25
I truly like this blog, please keep posting.